Petitioner filed a criminal writ petition complaining inaction regarding a proposal for his premature release. The court issued notice, which the Appellant waived, and directed the respondent to decide the proposed release within six weeks.
Directed respondent no. 2 to take a decision on the proposal within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 959-WP-263-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 263 OF 2023
Manoj s/o Shivajirao Patil
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Petitioner
...Respondents
Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal – Advocae for the applicant
Mr. S. J. Salgare – APP for respondent / State
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 14.03.2023
PER COURT : -
1.The petitioner is before this court aggrieved by the fact that
inspite of the proposal in respect of his premature release has been
forwarded to the respondent no. 2, no further decision has been taken.
2.Issue notice to the respondents. Learned APP waives
service of notice for both the respondents.
3.We dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent
no. 2 to take a decision on the proposal received by him from the
respondent no. 1 as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within six
weeks from today, if it is already not decided.
[ M. M. SATHAYE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
SGP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to direction for expeditious decision on proposal for premature release.
Manoj s/o Shivajirao Patil
The State of Maharashtra
MANGESH S. PATIL
M. M. SATHAYE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court